Print Disability

George Kerscher of the DAISY Consortium has been commonly credited with creating the term ‘print disability’.Footnote ¹ The data from Google NgramFootnote ² demonstrates that the term was in use at least by the mid 1970s, and it overtook ‘print handicap’ by the mid-1980s. The scope of the term ‘print disability’ has been interpreted differently by various legislative instruments and organisations, but in general it is an umbrella term for a number of temporary or permanent health conditions which can be:

• visual (such as blindness and vision loss; low vision associated with medical conditions such as uncorrected refractive error, age-related macular degeneration, cataract, glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy; and also colour vision deficiency)

• cognitive and perceptual, affecting sensory processing (such as dyslexia or autistic spectrum disorders), as well as learning difficulties and intellectual disabilities

• physical, including any conditions that make it difficult to manipulate and interact with printed materials (such as arthritis or multiple sclerosis), or to focus or move the eyes (Ganner et al. Reference Ganner, Mrva-Montoya, Park and Duncan2023, 1, 16).

Note

Decisions about who is considered to be ‘print disabled’ have a significant effect on access to medical and other services, including access to specialist libraries. While such issues are critical in the overall picture, they are outside the scope of this book.

The Difference between ‘Accessible’ and ‘Inclusive’ Publishing

Within the publishing industry, the terms ‘accessible’ and ‘inclusive’ publishing are often used interchangeably. For example, a number of organisations committed to improving access to published materials by people with print disability include ‘inclusive publishing’ in their names, such as Inclusive Publishing,Footnote ⁴ Australian Inclusive Publishing Initiative,Footnote ⁵ and Nordic Inclusive Publishing Initiative.Footnote ⁶ At the same time, ‘accessible publishing’ appears in the names of Publishing Accessibility Action Group (UK),Footnote ⁷ online repositories for information and training resources for the Canadian publishing industry such as Accessible PublishingFootnote ⁸ and Accessible Publishing Learning Network,Footnote ⁹ as well as the DAISY Accessible Publishing Knowledge BaseFootnote ¹⁰ and the Accessible Books Consortium’s Charter for Accessible Publishing.Footnote ¹¹

While both terms share the goal of making content available to a wider range of individuals, these approaches reveal critical nuances that can significantly impact how accessibility implementation is understood and enacted.

The Intersection of Disability Models and the Publishing World

The move to inclusive publishing must be understood within the broader context of the development of disability rights in international laws, and the impact of these rights on the lives of people with disability worldwide (discussed in Chapter 1). Specifically, three different disability models (medical, social, and human rights) have been developed over the years, reflecting changing attitudes towards disability and the way society views individuals with impairments.

Traditionally, the publishing industry has operated following the ‘medical model’ of disability, focusing on the production of books for sighted audiences. In the medical model, the emphasis is on diagnosing the specific impairment or condition (such as visual impairments, dyslexia, or cognitive disorders) that hinder the ability to read and comprehend printed material. The production of alternative formats, such as large print, braille, or audio recordings, has been the purview of disability agencies operating under the exceptions to the national copyright laws. Access to those materials, provided via specialist libraries such as Vision Australia or Bookshare ® or disability services at universities, has been limited to only those with a diagnosis of print disability.

The ‘social model’ of print disability, a term coined by Mike Oliver in 1981, moves away from ‘functional limitations of individuals with impairments’ and shifts attention ‘onto the problems caused by disabling environments, barriers and cultures’ and human rights concerns (Barnes Reference Barnes, Watson and Vehmas2020, 20, 26). In this context, print disability ‘occurs as a result of the interaction between people living with temporary or permanent health conditions and the barriers to reading they may experience when content is made available in print form only’ (Ganner et al. Reference Ganner, Mrva-Montoya, Park and Duncan2023, 1). According to the social model of disability, the barriers to accessing content experienced by people with print disability are created by publishers, software developers, hardware producers, and other stakeholders, who do not take into account their diverse needs and requirements. Overall, the social model emphasises removing barriers and integrating accessibility into mainstream publishing practices, seeing disability as a societal issue.

One of the key criticisms of the social model was the lack of recognition of impairment as a natural aspect of human diversity that governments have a responsibility to support. This led to the development of the ‘human rights model’ of disability, which is best exemplified by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD). In comparison to the social model, ‘the human rights model is more comprehensive in that it encompasses both sets of human rights, civil and political, as well as economic, social, and cultural rights’ (Degener Reference Degener, Fina, Cera and Palmisano2017, 44). Article 30 of UN CRPD requires countries that are parties to the convention to ensure ‘access to cultural materials’, but also to ‘take appropriate measures to enable persons with disabilities to have the opportunity to develop and utilize their creative, artistic and intellectual potential, not only for their own benefit, but also for the enrichment of society’. Thus, the human rights model establishes legal frameworks and social expectations that compel publishers towards more inclusive practices – extending beyond mere access to content and encompassing meaningful participation of people with disability in writing and publishing, and in society more broadly (as discussed in Chapter 4). This model reframes accessibility not as voluntary corporate responsibility but as a fundamental legal obligation within an evolving rights-based landscape.

The Emerging Landscape of Research in Inclusive Publishing

Inclusive and/or accessible publishing is a relatively recent area of research and industry practice. The research spans various disciplinary approaches and themes, focusing on the legal and regulatory frameworks, the technology of accessibility, and empirical studies looking at the implementation of accessibility in the publishing industry. As the research landscape reveals, inclusive publishing remains a complex ecosystem of legal, technological, and social challenges that continue to marginalise readers with print disability.

The scholarly discourse spans multiple critical domains, yet has so far failed to translate into meaningful, transformative change. Paul Harpur’s seminal work, Discrimination, Copyright and Equality: Opening the E-book for the Print-disabled (Reference Harpur2017) starkly illustrates this contradiction. For instance, despite the technological opportunities created by digital innovations, existing copyright frameworks continue to negatively impact access to published content. The Marrakesh Treaty, while progressive, has failed to eliminate the book famine, with national and international implementations revealing deep-rooted systemic barriers.Footnote ¹⁵ The more recent European Accessibility Act has attracted less attention in policy work and scholarly literature thus far,Footnote ¹⁶ and its impact on the publishing industry is yet to be investigated in detail.

Like the policy landscape, the technological aspect of inclusive publishing faces its own implementation challenges. The technological side is deeply intertwined with web accessibility, and with accessibility in computing and information technologies (ICT) more broadly. The historical trajectory of accessibility research – from the establishment of ACM SIGACCESS in 1971 (Freeman Reference Freeman2022) to contemporary web accessibility studies – demonstrates both progress and persistent limitations. Regrettably, the current picture remains one where the technological potential of accessibility implementation stands in sharp contrast to practical implementation efforts. While researchers have comprehensively mapped web accessibility challenges (Yesilada & Harper Reference Yesilada and Harper2019), the ICT industry continues to treat accessibility as a peripheral concern rather than a fundamental right.

The situation within the publishing industry is analogous. For instance, research has consistently identified persistent accessibility issues in PDFsFootnote ¹⁷ and EPUB files.Footnote ¹⁸ These technical challenges with file accessibility are symptomatic of issues within the broader publishing ecosystem, as revealed through industry surveys from Australia (Mrva-Montoya Reference Mrva-Montoya2020a, Reference Mrva-Montoya2022a), Canada (Association of Canadian Publishers and eBOUND Canada 2020), the European Union (SIDPT 2020), and the UK (Alexander Reference Alexander2022; PAAG 2022), case studiesFootnote ¹⁹ and industry analysesFootnote ²⁰ that show a consistent pattern of barriers. Despite growing awareness and numerous best practice guidelines from organisations like the Australian Inclusive Publishing Initiative (AIPI 2019a, 2019b), Accessible Books Consortium,Footnote ²¹ DAISY Consortium,Footnote ²² eBOUND Canada (2024), Fondazione LIA (2022), National Network for Equitable Library Service (NNELS),Footnote ²³ Publishing Accessibility Action Group,Footnote ²⁴ and others,Footnote ²⁵ the implementation of accessibility remains inconsistent and inadequate.

Notwithstanding these persistent barriers to implementation, emerging research offers glimpses of potential transformation. For example, innovative approaches such as using computer algorithms for book recommendation systems for visually impaired readers suggest the possibility of technological solutions (Yu et al. Reference Yu, Bu, Li, Wang, Tang, Zhao, Miesenberger, Manduchi, Rodriguez and Peňáz2020). The published case studies and industry analyses mentioned earlier – from collaborative approaches to image accessibility to the implementation of plain language summaries – provide roadmaps for incremental progress.

Yet even as these solutions emerge, the research landscape itself reflects the marginalisation it seeks to address. Indeed, as Forget and Wingate’s recent bibliography (Reference Forget2024) pointedly demonstrates, the intersection of book history and disability studies remains remarkably under-researched – a scholarly silence that is itself a form of exclusion.

About the Book

This book is based on a review of the published literature and empirical studies. It focuses on developments in Australia, Canada, the European Union, the UK, and the United States. The digital revolution has radically transformed the publishing landscape, expanding both who can publish and what constitutes publishing through social media and digital platforms. Nevertheless, Inclusive Publishing and the Quest for Reading Equity centres on traditional book publishers – those producing long-form writing in print, digital, and audio formats across commercial/trade, educational, and scholarly sectors.

These publishing sectors operate under distinct dynamics, and despite ongoing industry consolidation and globalisation, they maintain a remarkable plurality of voices and diversity of ownership. An organisation’s sector and size significantly influence its capacity and approach to implementing accessibility measures: from multinational publishers with dedicated accessibility teams to independent presses with limited resources. Yet, the fundamental principles of inclusive publishing transcend these organisational boundaries. Although this book primarily examines traditional book publishing, its insights are equally valuable for self-publishing ventures and non-book content creators, who face similar challenges in making their content accessible to all readers.

Chapter 1 provides a broader context to accessibility implementation by discussing the legal and social forces that have shaped the ‘accessibility turn’ in the publishing industry, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled (Marrakesh Treaty); and the European Accessibility Act (EAA). As argued earlier, the EAA constitutes a paradigm shift by requiring publishers to fund and produce accessible formats of books, and its impact extends beyond the European Union.

Chapter 2 examines the main concerns and challenges related to accessibility implementation, as well as strategic advantages for publishers who adopt inclusive publishing workflows. While government regulation and public policy have a role to play in the transition to inclusive publishing, I argue that strategic partnerships and collaborations with the disability sector and other organisations are essential to drive the industry transformation.

In Chapter 3, I discuss the key elements of inclusive publishing at an organisational level. This includes the importance of having accessibility principles embedded in policy, workflows, and quality assurance processes in order to produce born-accessible publications. Inclusive publishing encompasses the entire publishing ecosystem and book supply chain. It is proactive, comprehensive, and more cost-effective and efficient than remediating content at the end of the publishing process to comply with the legal mandates and accessibility standards.

Chapter 4 expands the focus beyond accessible formats to look at three areas where disability and publishing studies intersect: the paucity of staff with disability working in publishing, the lack of representation of people with disability in books, and the question of inclusive and accessible language. Using an intersectional lens, I argue that inclusive publishing needs to go beyond accessible content and formats. Creating born-accessible publications should go together with making the publishing industry inclusive of people with print and other disabilities, as staff, authors, and characters in the books, while acknowledging that disability is intertwined with other aspects of identity and marginalisation.

Finally, the book concludes by surveying key trends in inclusive publishing and identifying critical areas for future research. The conclusion serves as a call for publishers, content creators, and other industry stakeholders to adopt a proactive, inclusive mindset, recognising that true inclusivity goes beyond removing barriers to access.

International Human Rights Instruments

International human rights instruments have progressively transformed our understanding of human dignity and equality. The UDHR proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 emerged as a groundbreaking document that recognised that ‘the inherent dignity of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world’. Beyond its philosophical significance, UDHR comprehensively articulated civil and political rights (such as the right to life, liberty, security, free speech, and privacy), and economic, social, and cultural rights (such as the right to health, work, education, and social security), forming the basis of international human rights law and more than seventy human rights treaties, including the UN CRPD.

According to Paul Harpur, the UN CRPD, which was adopted in 2006 and entered into force 3 May 2008, complemented the original declaration and ushered in a new rights-based disability model that had a profound impact on legal frameworks and global discourse around digital reading equality. The treaty framed having access to accessible information and communication technologies as a fundamental human right for persons with disability. Its innovative framework requires its signatories to implement a comprehensive disability-rights-based agenda that extends far beyond legal reforms. The UN CRPD mandates states to raise awareness, combat stereotypes and prejudices, and promote the capabilities and contributions of persons with disabilities (Harpur Reference Harpur2017, 32–33, 44–45), while also requiring to ‘take all appropriate steps to ensure that reasonable accommodation is provided’ when implementing measures ‘to promote equality and eliminate discrimination’ (Art. 5(3)). This rights-centred approach acknowledges that accessibility is not optional but a necessary condition for persons with disabilities to fully participate in society and enjoy their human rights on an equal basis with others.

Critically, the UN CRPD provisions directly address information access, compelling states to ensure persons with disabilities can ‘enjoy access to cultural materials in accessible formats’ (Art. 30). The states are also required to ‘[urge] private entities’ and ‘[encourage] mass media’ to ‘provide information and services in accessible and usable formats for persons with disabilities’ (Art. 21(c) and (d)), thereby transforming accessibility from an optional consideration to a fundamental social responsibility.

The UN CRPD directly addresses reading equity by mandating that state parties ensure intellectual property rights do not create unreasonable or discriminatory barriers to cultural materials access for persons with disabilities (Art. 30(3)). The convention further compels states to ‘undertake or promote research and development of universally designed goods, services, equipment and facilities … which should require the minimum possible adaptation and the least cost to meet the specific needs of a person with disabilities, to promote their availability and use’ (Art. 2).

The UN CRPD provides a comprehensive definition of universal design as ‘the design of products, environments, programmes and services to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design’. Crucially, while emphasising universal design, the convention explicitly ensures that assistive devices for specific groups of persons remain essential (Art. 2), calling for reading equity rather than just equality. In the publishing context, born-accessible digital books like reflowable EPUB3 files most effectively embody the criteria of inclusively designed products. However, ensuring the ongoing production of traditional accessible formats such as braille books, which are specifically mentioned in the UN CRPD, remains crucial for reading equity.

The convention’s transformative impact extends far beyond theoretical frameworks. It has directly influenced international copyright laws, catalysing the adoption of the Marrakesh Treaty (Harpur Reference Harpur2017, 65), and the EAA. Moreover, the UN CRPD compels signatory states to align their domestic legislation, policies, and practices with the obligations contained in the convention, ensuring a systematic approach to accessibility and disability rights.

The Marrakesh Treaty

As international human rights frameworks evolved to prioritise accessibility, the Marrakesh Treaty emerged as a crucial mechanism for transforming these principles into actionable copyright law. Adopted by member states of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) on 28 June 2013 and entering into force on 30 September 2016, the treaty represents a pivotal breakthrough in improving access to books for persons with print disability. The treaty mandates that signatories incorporate minimum baseline copyright provisions which enable people with print disability (or organisations acting on their behalf) to create and share accessible formats of copyrighted works, while also facilitating a cross-border exchange of accessible copies produced according to the limitations and exceptions it provides.

In Australia, for example, the treaty’s implementation led to a comprehensive legislative transformation. The Copyright Amendment (Disability Access and Other Measures) Act 2017 fundamentally redesigned disability access provisions by removing references to specific impairments. Instead, the law now defines ‘a person with a disability’ as ‘an individual who has difficulty reading, viewing, hearing or comprehending copyright material in a particular form’. This approach creates a more inclusive framework that encompasses all disabilities, all types of materials, and all required formats. The amendment replaced the previous narrow exception with a fair dealing exception, and also replaced statutory licences with ‘a single exception that applies to organisations assisting persons with a disability’. Critically, it defines ‘organisation assisting persons with a disability’ as ‘educational institutions and not-for-profit organisations with a principal function of providing assistance to persons with a disability’, permitting them to produce and distribute accessible format copies when such materials are not commercially available within a reasonable timeframe and at standard commercial pricing.

Despite its groundbreaking nature, the Marrakesh Treaty has significant limitations in eliminating reading inequity. As Stamm and Hsu critically observe, the treaty does not compel countries to develop inclusive policies for people with disabilities, and crucially, ‘Publishers are not affected by the Marrakesh Treaty and are allowed to continue producing their books in inaccessible formats’ (Stamm & Hsu Reference 117Stamm and Hsu2021, 692). In other words, the treaty focuses primarily on the provision of specialist formats and not the promotion of born-accessible mainstream content, effectively maintaining a marginal approach to disability access.

The treaty’s structural approach perpetuates what Harpur describes as an ‘exception paradigm’ that merely tolerates limited unauthorised dealings (Harpur Reference Harpur2017, 75). By relying on public and non-profit organisations to be ‘the main facilitators of access to useable content by vision-impaired people’ (Adair & Harpur Reference Adair, Harpur, Ellis, Haller, Curtis and Goggin2019, 400), it permits the creation of accessible copies on an ad hoc basis, allowing individuals with disabilities to access individual titles through authorised institutions using adaptive technologies. This model inherently constrains access as ‘the creation of accessible copies is still costly and slow, obtaining access remains the exception, rather than the norm’ (Harpur Reference Harpur2017, 75).

Nonetheless, the treaty has made meaningful strides in expanding book access for people with print disability. Even though Harpur argues that ‘the tolerance model to disability access is not providing adequate access’, and ‘fall[s] short of human rights obligations in the CRPD’, he acknowledges that the treaty has expanded access to books for people with print disability (Harpur Reference Harpur2017, 77, 81–83). Practical implementations demonstrate this potential. For example, Bookshare ®, an online library of accessible books originally limited to audiences in the United States, now operates internationally through partnerships with various libraries and organisations for the blind.Footnote ²⁸ Similarly, the ABC Global Book Service of the Accessible Books Consortium, a public–private partnership launched in June 2014 by the World Intellectual Property Organization and a group of key partners to support the Marrakesh Treaty on a practical level, provides a global platform for accessible digital books.

Apart from facilitating access to existing libraries of accessible content, the Marrakesh Treaty has also stimulated broader accessibility conversations within the publishing industry worldwide. By creating an international framework for accessible content exchange, it has highlighted the critical importance of inclusive publishing practices and sparked implementation efforts across several countries, as explored in Chapter 2.

The European Accessibility Act

Following the progressive international developments in disability rights, the European Accessibility Act (EAA) emerges as a landmark legislative instrument aimed at standardising and mainstreaming accessibility across physical environments, transport, and information and communication technologies. Described as ‘the most ambitious of the EU legislative steps towards accessibility’ (Drabarz Reference Drabarz2020, 85–86), the EAA distinguishes itself from previous instruments by directly addressing accessibility of mainstream content in the publishing sector.

The act’s development traces a deliberate path of international commitment. After the European Union (EU) ratified UN CRPD in January 2011, organisations and government entities in its member states have been bound to fulfil the obligations of the convention. By 2014, the EU had adopted several legal acts to harmonise accessibility requirements for goods and services (Drabarz Reference Drabarz2020, 83–85). The EU’s strategic approach continued with the signing of the Marrakesh Treaty on 30 April 2014, and the creation of implementing directive on 13 September 2017.Footnote ²⁹ Building on these legal instruments, the EU adopted the EAA in 2019, with implementation mandated for EU member states by 28 June 2022, and full enforcement set for 28 June 2025.

The directive’s scope is comprehensive, aiming to improve the EU internal market’s functioning by removing barriers created by divergent accessibility regulations in member states. Businesses in the EU stand to gain from streamlined accessibility regulations facilitating cost reduction, simplified cross-border trading, and expanded ‘market opportunities for their accessible products and services’. Individuals with disability and elderly people are expected to experience improved accessibility through the availability of more competitive and affordable products and services, reduced barriers in transportation, education, and the job market, and increased job opportunities for people with accessibility expertise. Notably, in the context of publishing, the EAA’s coverage extends to a diverse range of products and services, including ebooks, ereaders, and ecommerce platforms, signalling a holistic approach to accessibility in the book ecosystem.

Most importantly, in contrast to the exception-based Marrakesh Treaty, the EAA requires publishers to produce their digital publications in accessible and interoperable formats, which ‘should optimise the compatibility of those files with the user agents and with current and future assistive technologies’. Following the UN CRPD, the EAA recommends a universal design or ‘design for all’ approach to the creation of products and services (41, 50). In essence, the EAA requires publishers to operate from the social model of disability; that is, to remove barriers to content access for people with print disability by publishing born-accessible digital books.

The legislation’s approach is notably flexible, avoiding detailed technical restrictions to allow for innovation while referencing the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) and requiring accessibility metadata (Annex I, Section IV(f)). Moreover, the EAA emphasises collaborative implementation, directly stipulating the need for cooperation between authorities and relevant stakeholders, including persons with disability and disability organisations, to improve coherence and monitor the implementation of the provisions of EAA (96). This comprehensive approach extends beyond publishers to the entire supply chain, which will need to make content available to users through accessible services.

Recognising practical constraints, the EAA includes nuanced provisions for smaller businesses. Microenterprises – that is, businesses with fewer than 10 employees and an annual turnover or a balance sheet total of no more than €2 million (EU, n.d.) – are exempt from the obligations of the act, though encouraged to comply. Moreover, member states are required to ‘provide guidelines and tools to microenterprises to facilitate the application of national measures transposing this Directive’. Additionally, companies may seek an exemption by demonstrating ‘evidence of the disproportionate burden or fundamental alteration’ (68) – which, as Laura Brady observes, could particularly impact ‘highly visual content like comics and graphic novels, children’s books, and art books’ (Brady Reference Brady2024). While exemptions to the EAA may provide short-term relief to publishers, they could also lead to long-term challenges in accessibility implementation and impede overall progress towards a more inclusive publishing environment.

The EAA’s effectiveness in addressing the reading equity remains uncertain, despite its ambitious goals. Jeffrey Archer Miller critically observes that the European Commission’s strategic framing of the EAA as a ‘business-friendly venture rather than an anti-discrimination initiative’ potentially undermines its comprehensive implementation (Miller Reference Miller2024, 190). The EAA rollout has been plagued by significant implementation challenges. Sixteen out of twenty-seven EU member states missed the June 2022 deadline for taking measures to transpose the EAA into their national laws (European Union of the Deaf 2022) and by February 2024, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Netherlands, and Poland had yet to do so (Brady Reference Brady2024). This delayed implementation raises serious questions about the act’s practical impact.

The publishing landscape further complicates the EAA’s implementation. The industry is predominantly composed of microenterprises that fall outside the act’s scope. The publishing ecosystem in Poland, for example, illustrates this complexity: in 2023 there were only forty large publishers with an annual income of over €5 million. Meanwhile, there were 206 medium-sized publishers with an annual income of €215,000 to €5 million, over 1,600 small publishers with an annual income of less than €200,000 and publishing at least two titles a year, and over 4,000 irregular publishers producing an occasional publication (Polish Book Institute 2023). While large publishers have the potential to make significant strides in widening access to books through their extensive publishing programmes and the sheer scale of their operations, smaller, independent presses are crucial to maintaining bibliodiversity (Hawthorne Reference Hawthorne2014). Encouragingly, some smaller presses are already demonstrating leadership in proactively embracing inclusive publishing practices, for example, Hegas in Sweden.

The June 2025 implementation date presents a critical challenge, particularly for the backlist titles. There are legitimate concerns that many existing publications may disappear from the market if they are not remediated in time. Recognising these difficulties, some countries have adopted more flexible approaches. France and Italy, for instance, have instituted a five-year transition period until 2030, leveraging Article 32 of the EAA to provide publishers with additional time to implement accessibility measures in their backlist titles (Brady Reference Brady2024).

The enforcement mechanism of the EAA operates through a decentralised framework, with each EU member state wielding significant discretion in implementing and enforcing compliance measures. While the act mandates that enforcement measures must be ‘effective, proportionate, and dissuasive’, and ‘take into account the extent of the non-compliance’ (Art. 30), this flexibility has led to varying approaches across jurisdictions. The established penalty structure imposes fines ranging from €5,000 to €7,500 per infraction, encompassing a broad spectrum of accessibility violations: from inaccessible content and problematic digital rights management implementation to inadequate reading system accessibility, missing accessibility metadata, and inaccessible purchasing experiences. Significantly, the enforcement mechanism empowers both individual consumers and disability organisations to report compliance issues, creating a collaborative monitoring system (Brady Reference Brady2024).

This nuanced and multi-stakeholder approach suggests a recognition of the complex challenges facing publishers while maintaining a commitment to increasing accessibility. However, the ultimate success of the EAA will depend on continued momentum, supportive policy frameworks, and a genuine commitment to inclusive publishing across the European publishing ecosystem.

While the EAA is of particular salience to European publishers, it will affect any organisation wanting to sell ebooks in the European market, so its influence will be much greater. Moreover, as multinational publishers implement inclusive publishing practices to produce EAA-compliant books, they are likely to introduce these practices to their operations in other territories. The rest of the publishing world will also benefit from the knowledge and experience of European publishers in tackling accessibility implementation. The potential for the EAA to have a global impact is consistent with the ‘Brussels effect’; that is, ‘the EU’s unilateral power to regulate global markets’. As Anu Bradford argues, ‘The EU today promulgates regulations that influence which products are built and how business is conducted, not just in Europe but everywhere in the world’ (Bradford Reference Bradford2020, xv).

The regulatory power of legislation like the EAA becomes especially crucial given that, according to Paul Harpur, corporate social responsibility, soft law, and self-regulation ‘cannot be relied upon to motivate corporations to promote digital equality’ (Reference Harpur2017, 28), particularly in a setting where there are conflicting interests vying for publishers’ attention, such as diversity, equity and inclusion, or sustainability issues.

Legal imperatives such as the EAA play a significant role in galvanising the industry’s move towards inclusive publishing practices. Even if publishers outside the EU are not directly affected by national legal instruments, they may still need to comply indirectly with various public procurement requirements. For example, in Australia, following the ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty in 2016, the national (government) procurement rules were revised, requiring not only all levels of government but also public libraries and educational institutions to procure digital products, services, and content that meet accessibility requirements (Standards Australia 2016; AIPI 2019a, 13). In the United States, there has been ‘a series of legal cases against universities providing inaccessible materials to students’ (Trimble Reference Trimble2018, 21; see also Iglesias Reference Iglesias2018, 50). As mentioned before, in the current US legal framework, which includes the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) and other relevant legislature including Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, it is the schools and universities that are liable, not the publishers. However, this situation is impacting educational publishing houses too, because some universities and their libraries have started including accessibility requirements in their procurement policies (Wood et al. Reference Wood, Axelrod and Stephen Downie2017, 29; Axelrod Reference Axelrod2018, 42). Those major educational publishers that are moving towards the production of accessible content are gaining competitive advantage over those that are not. These companies are then rolling out accessibility implementation across their subsidiaries in other countries too, so the impact of the legal cases against educational institutions in the United States is far reaching.

This cascade of regulatory and market pressures across different jurisdictions demonstrates how accessibility requirements are becoming increasingly embedded in the global publishing ecosystem. And the implications extend far beyond publishing. By challenging existing paradigms of production and distribution, these legal and social forces are reshaping our understanding of design, technology, and social participation. They represent a profound recognition that disability is not a deviation from a norm, but a fundamental characteristic of human experience.

Greco’s concept of the ‘accessibility revolution’ is thus more than a metaphor. It represents a fundamental reimagining of social structures, challenging us to create systems that are inherently inclusive rather than retrofitting accessibility as an afterthought. The publishing industry becomes a microcosm of this larger societal transformation – an arena where legal innovation, technological capability, and human rights discourse converge to create more equitable modes of knowledge dissemination. The progress towards inclusive publishing varies significantly between nations and industry sectors due to a complex interplay of factors: a combination of regulatory requirements, market demands, advocacy efforts, and leadership within publishing organisations.

This chapter has traced how international human rights instruments, copyright reforms, and accessibility legislation have progressively transformed the publishing landscape, moving from an exception-based model that relied on specialised formats to a rights-based framework that demands mainstream accessible publishing. While these legal and regulatory developments, particularly the EAA, create powerful incentives for change, they alone cannot guarantee successful implementation of inclusive publishing practices. As the industry navigates this complex regulatory landscape and grapples with implementation challenges, the next chapter examines how some publishers have developed effective accessibility strategies through collaborative partnerships with disability organisations, arguing that such alliances are essential for driving meaningful transformation beyond mere compliance.

The Barriers to Inclusion: Key Concerns and Challenges

These collaborative efforts emerge in response to significant obstacles facing publishers across international markets, as evidenced by recent industry research. The findings of industry surveys in Australia (Mrva-Montoya Reference Mrva-Montoya2020a, Reference Mrva-Montoya2022a), Canada (Association of Canadian Publishers and eBOUND Canada 2020), the European Union (SIDPT 2020), and the UK (Alexander Reference Alexander2022; PAAG 2022) show similar barriers to the production, distribution, and discovery of accessible books in various markets. These include limited knowledge; a lack of capacity, including staffing resources; the cost of implementation; and concerns around copyright.

Is Accessibility ‘Good’ for Publishers?

Beyond the challenges of implementation, the strategic imperative of digital accessibility extends far beyond mere compliance, representing a transformative opportunity for publishers to redefine their market positioning and social impact. Digital accessibility emerges as a multifaceted strategic asset, transcending traditional perspectives of regulatory compliance to become a powerful lever for organisational innovation and market differentiation. Kogan Page, a publisher of academic and professional business books, is a good example of an organisation that heavily invested in born-accessible book production process, winning the IPG Digital Publishing Award in 2020 and the ABC International Excellence Award for Accessible Publishing in 2022.Footnote ³⁴

Kogan’s success story aligns with broader industry perspectives on accessibility as a business advantage. The World Wide Web Consortium’s Web Accessibility Initiative (W3C WAI) articulates a compelling business case, positioning accessibility not as a burden but as a strategic advantage that minimises legal risks, amplifies organisational branding, expands market reach, and catalyses innovative practices (W3C WAI 2018). All these benefits are relevant to the publishing industry, as many countries have regulations and standards in place that require digital content to be accessible to people with disability.

The strategic dimensions of accessibility implementation extend well beyond risk mitigation. Compliance with national and international accessibility regulations will serve as a critical protective mechanism, helping publishers avoid legal issues and potential fines, a reality that becomes even more significant with the implementation of the EAA. Moreover, many procurement frameworks now explicitly require digital content accessibility, transforming it from an optional enhancement to a fundamental market entry requirement. This shift repositions accessibility from a peripheral consideration to a core competitive differentiator (Hurix 2023, PAAG n.d.).

Perhaps most compellingly, accessibility aligns with the evolving narrative of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in publishing. As Alison Jones (Reference Jones2015) observes, CRS initiatives in publishing have increasingly centred on the core mission ‘on literacy and getting content to readers in the most accessible way’ (Jones Reference Jones2015). This approach repositions accessibility not merely as a technical requirement but as a profound ethical commitment to inclusive knowledge dissemination, potentially enhancing brand reputation and demonstrating a publisher’s dedication to social equity. Taylor and Francis is an example of publisher with accessibility clearly seen as part of its corporate responsibility initiatives.Footnote ³⁵

As the publishing industry grapples with the strategic dimensions of accessibility, the economic potential of inclusive publishing emerges as a nuanced and compelling narrative of market transformation. While the potential market expansion through born-accessible publications has been a recurring topic of conversation (for example, AIPI 2019a, 10–12), the reality presents a more complex economic landscape. Simon Mellins (Reference Mellins2024) cautions against overstating the increase in sales as an argument for accessibility implementation, highlighting that many individuals with print disability rely on free access via specialised libraries. This dependency reveals a critical market failure: the current ecosystem systematically constrains consumer choice and economic participation. The fundamental challenge extends beyond mere publication accessibility, requiring a comprehensive reimagining of digital distribution platforms. Currently, individuals with print disability face significant barriers in discovering and purchasing digital books, with accessible distribution platforms and comprehensive accessibility metadata remaining rare exceptions (see the Fondazione LIA’s catalogue) rather than industry standards.

The concept of disability as a viable market segment is not a novel insight, but a strategic opportunity that has been progressively recognised since the late twentieth century. The term ‘handicapitalism’, coined by Joshua Prager in his Reference Prager1999 Wall Street Journal article, represented a paradigm shift in economic thinking. Prager’s seminal observation challenged prevailing perception, arguing that ‘[p]eople with disabilities shouldn’t be viewed as charity cases or regulatory burdens, but rather as profitable marketing targets’. This perspective finds powerful contemporary validation in the UK’s ‘Purple Pound’ phenomenon. With over 14 million disabled people commanding a combined spending power of £274 billion, this market segment demonstrates not just economic significance, but a remarkable brand loyalty to organisations committed to genuine inclusivity.Footnote ³⁶

As the global landscape of digital accessibility unfolds, the sheer magnitude of potential readers with print disability emerges as a profound, yet often overlooked, market opportunity. Estimating the prevalence of print disability globally presents a complex methodological challenge, characterised by significant variations in definitional approaches and data collection across different countries and organisations. The most comprehensive statistics are available for blindness and vision impairment, and these numbers indicate just how many people may be affected by print disability. The World Health Organization’s 2019 report estimated that ‘at least 2.2 billion people around the world have a vision impairment or blindness’, a figure projected to grow due to ‘population growth and ageing, along with behavioural and lifestyle changes, and urbanization’ (WHO 2019, xi). To give another example, most studies estimate that between 3 and 7 per cent of people have dyslexia, based on scoring significantly below average on reading tests. Prevalence estimations are higher if the criteria are less strict (Wagner et al. Reference Wagner, Zirps and Edwards2020). These statistics represent not merely a demographic metric, but a compelling call to reimagine inclusive publishing strategies that have historically marginalised a substantial portion of potential readers.

Moreover, empirical research reveals that individuals with print disability demonstrate remarkably robust and engaged reading behaviours. A landmark study by Creaser and colleagues uncovered a striking insight: people who are blind or partially sighted read more than sighted readers: 95 per cent read at least once a week for pleasure, in comparison to 74 per cent in the general population in the UK (Creaser et al. Reference Claire, Spacey and Hicks2012, 16). Australian data further substantiates this trend, with 88 per cent of respondents with print disability reporting that they love or like to read, compared to 75 per cent of the general Australian population relaying that they read or listen to at least one book a year. The reading intensity is particularly noteworthy: 19 per cent of people with print disability read 6 or more books per month, 17 per cent read 4–5 books, and 35 per cent read 2–3 books. The remaining 29 per cent read one or fewer books each month (Australia Reads 2021; Mrva-Montoya Reference Mrva-Montoya2022b). While these outcomes may have been biased, as both studies of people with print disability targeted book readers in the first place, publishers are missing out on potential sales by ignoring this market.

But, of course, the audience for accessible content is made up of many more people than just those who have no or low vision, or have a medical diagnosis of print disability. Beyond those with permanent, long- or short-term print disability, accessible content is also useful for users affected by functional limitations (a term used in the EAA [4]) or situationally induced impairments and disabilities (SIIDs). This term, created in 2003, uses a disability framework to conceptualise ‘how various situations, contexts, and environments negatively affect people’s abilities to interact with computing systems’ (Wobbrock Reference Wobbrock, Yesilada and Harper2019, 61). The use of this term is controversial and has been seen to diminish ‘the lived experiences of those with lifelong disabilities’. However, it has brought a useful perspective, showing that ‘everyone experiences limits to their abilities … when interacting with technology in dynamic situations, contexts, or environments’ and highlighting the need to focus on ‘designing for all users and their abilities – for what they can do in a given situation, and not what they cannot do’ (Wobbrock Reference Wobbrock, Yesilada and Harper2019, 61).

This expansive understanding of accessibility challenges traditional narratives of disability by highlighting the contextual and fluid nature of human capability. Poor lighting, cognitive load, multilingual contexts, or multitasking-type activities (such as driving) can affect a person’s ability to read books in print, so the ability to switch to another format is helpful. Many accessibility considerations are useful for readers who are not fluent in the dominant language (who benefit from the ability to hear the text spoken) or are multitasking (such as truck drivers, who are an important new audience for audiobooks). In fact, the audio format, which was originally produced to cater for blind veterans in the wake of both world wars, has become an alternative and increasingly popular way to ‘read’ books for sighted readers. What began as a specialised solution has evolved into a mainstream alternative, demonstrating how accessibility-driven innovations can create unexpected benefits for broader populations. Research increasingly supports this perspective, with scholars like Persson et al. arguing that accessible information and communication technology products and services (and this includes books in digital formats) are ‘of a much wider importance than only for individuals with a disability. The benefits can be experienced by most stakeholders’ (Persson et al. Reference Persson, Åhman, Arvei Yngling and Gulliksen2015, 506).

The pervasive nature of accessibility features reveals a profound truth: inclusive design is not a niche accommodation, but a universal approach that benefits all users. Accessible ebook and audiobook files are not just alternative formats, but technologically superior solutions that are more usable for all readers. According to Booknet Canada’s 2018 survey on the use of ebooks, ‘approximately half of all digital readers use accessibility features of some kind’ when reading ebooks. This widespread adoption demonstrates that accessibility features are not marginal adaptations, but essential tools that fundamentally improve interaction with content. These features may include changing the typeface, font size, or text orientation; using night mode, screen magnification, or a screen reader; or adjusting colours (Harkonen Reference Harkonen2018). Such versatility speaks to a broader understanding of user needs that transcends traditional notions of disability.

The evolving discourse on accessibility challenges narrow conceptualisations of disability, positioning it as a critical lens for understanding human diversity and technological design. As Ria Cheyenne argues in her 2019 book Disability, Literature and Genre, ‘Disability studies has long sought to achieve recognition of the fact that disability is not a niche or minority interest, but a topic of vital importance to all people, whatever their disability status’. It is a fundamental aspect of human experience with universal relevance. The provocative term TAB (‘temporarily able-bodied’) serves as a powerful reminder that ‘all people will become disabled if they live long enough’ (Cheyne Reference Cheyne2019, 12). This perspective re-contextualises accessibility not as a specialised service, but as a fundamental approach to design that anticipates the diverse and changing capabilities of all users. Accessibility considerations inherently benefit multiple groups – older adults, multilingual communities, individuals with situational limitations – thereby creating more flexible, intuitive, and inclusive technological environments.

To summarise, the advantages for publishers are evident. Investing in accessibility encourages publishers to stay up-to-date with the latest technologies and design principles, drives innovation in content delivery, and fosters a culture of adaptability. As Matthew Rubery notes, ‘Media historians have long recognized the link between disability and invention’ (Rubery Reference 116Rubery2016, 60). As well as talking books, innovations have included the typewriter, telephone, text-to-speech, email, and voice controls (Girma Reference Girma2017). The question is no longer whether publishers should implement accessibility but how to do so effectively, and this is where collaboration with other stakeholders becomes crucial.

Working with Disability Organisations

Working with disability organisations represents a critical strategic approach to transforming content accessibility, highlighting the indispensable role of collaborative innovation. Historically, organisations in the disability sector have led the move towards improving access to content for people with print disability, often working against significant systemic barriers. Publishers now have an unprecedented opportunity to make disability organisations’ work much easier by providing them with content in digital formats, even though the current legal instruments do not necessarily require them to do so. Reassuringly, this seems to be happening. Benetech’s impressive achievement of engaging over 1,000 publishers in donating digital files to Bookshare® exemplifies the potential of such collaborative approaches.Footnote ³⁷

The critical importance of timely provision of suitable files becomes particularly evident in educational contexts where access can mean the difference between inclusion and exclusion. A 2020 survey of alternative-format producers in Australia revealed a stark reality: the length time required to produce an accessible format can vary from a mere one week to more than six months. This is a far cry from the same time, same format, same cost ideal. Apart from the time it takes to get a file from the publisher, other key variables include the type of source file, the size and complexity of the book, and the type of output produced. By faster turnaround and the provision of suitable files (ideally native files such as Adobe InDesign, Adobe Illustrator, EPUB or MS Word) via a digital transfer, publishers can dramatically reduce conversion time and cost (Mrva-Montoya Reference Mrva-Montoya2020b, 19–20, 23), transforming what has historically been a cumbersome process into a streamlined, inclusive workflow.

Strategic partnerships between disability organisations and publishing industry bodies have also emerged as a transformative mechanism for advancing inclusive publishing practices. These collaborations are not merely symbolic gestures but represent sophisticated, pragmatic approaches to systemic change. The UK’s 2020 report on implementing and scaling up inclusive business practices provides compelling evidence asserting that ‘partnerships and peer-to-peer learning are the most effective ways that multinational businesses use to learn how to transform business practices to become more responsible, sustainable, and inclusive’ (Lucas Reference Lucas2020, 2).

Such partnerships create virtuous cycles of knowledge exchange, where disability organisations provide crucial lived-experience insights, and publishers contribute technological and design expertise. This symbiotic relationship goes beyond traditional corporate social responsibility, representing a fundamental reimagining of content production as an inherently inclusive process. Actively engaging with alternative-format producers and other print-disability organisations is crucial to counteract the lack of accessibility knowledge among publishing professionals (see, for example, NNELS n.d.). These entities have a deep understanding of the needs of people with lived experience of print disability, their requirements, and the relevant accessibility laws and technical standards. With their extensive knowledge of assistive technologies, both hardware and software, and accessible format production, they can assist publishers in both testing products and incorporating feedback from individuals with print disability – the key stakeholders in the accessibility implementation process.

Beyond broad cross-sector initiatives, targeted collaborations between individual publishers and print-disability organisations are increasingly demonstrating the transformative potential of direct, intentional partnerships targeting the implementation of inclusive publishing workflows or the production of individual titles. Sydney University Press’ collaboration with the Royal Institute for Blind and Deaf Children (currently NextSense) and Infogrid Pacific in 2018 exemplifies this approach. NextSense provided critical guidance and feedback on file requirements and facilitated user-testing with readers with print disability.Footnote ³⁸ Similarly, Penguin Random House Canada’s collaboration with NNELS represents another milestone in inclusive publishing, demonstrating a commitment to simultaneous multi-format releases. By publishing Jamie Oliver’s 5 Ingredients Mediterranean, simultaneously in print and braille (BookNet Canada Reference 100BookNet2023), the publisher challenged traditional publishing models and signalled a profound shift towards genuinely inclusive content strategies. These examples illuminate how targeted collaborations can transform accessibility from a compliance requirement to a robust, user-centred approach to content creation.

Global Developments in Accessibility Implementation

The evolution of accessibility initiatives globally reveals a powerful narrative of collaborative innovation. Much of the work has been led by the DAISY Consortium, which was formed in May 1996 to facilitate the transition from analogue to digital talking books. Following the development of DAISY (Digital Accessible Information SYstem), the consortium has positioned itself as a comprehensive ecosystem architect, bringing together publishers, technology organisations, and individuals with print disability to fundamentally reimagine content accessibility. The consortium’s multifaceted approach encompasses developing robust standards and guidelines, raising critical awareness about inclusive publishing, and supporting open standards that challenge traditional content production paradigms. Its technological innovations – including software such as Ace by DAISY (an accessibility checker for EPUB), Obi (an audiobook production tool for digital talking books), and WordToEPUB (an EPUB creation tool) demonstrate a sophisticated understanding of accessibility as a dynamic, technologically mediated process. The consortium also created the Simple Manual Accessibility Reporting Tool (SMART), and provides consultancy services and training.Footnote ³⁹ By maintaining platforms such as the Google-funded Inclusive Publishing websiteFootnote ⁴⁰ and the knowledge base,Footnote ⁴¹ and fostering international collaborations such as with Libri Italiani Accessibili Fondazione (known as Fondazione LIA) in Italy, DAISY has created a global infrastructure for accessible content development.

The World Intellectual Property Organization’s (WIPO) Accessible Books Consortium (ABC) represents another key organisation in the global accessibility landscape, building upon foundational work of an earlier Enabling Technologies project, undertaken by EDItEUR, the Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB), and the DAISY Consortium. Launched in 2014 to support the implementation of the Marrakesh Treaty, the project facilitates access to accessible digital books via the ABC Global Book Service and provides guidance for publishers producing mainstream accessible econtent as exemplified by Accessible Publishing: Best Practice Guidelines (Hilderley Reference Hilderley2013 [2011]). The ABC also helps with capacity building in developing countries, and promotes the production of born-accessible publications. Through the Charter for Accessible Publishing, the ABC has developed an innovative mechanism that encourages organisations to embed accessibility as a core organisational value, requiring signatories to develop an accessibility policy, implement inclusive publishing practices, raise accessibility awareness, and actively collaborate with other organisations.Footnote ⁴² The annual ABC International Excellence Award further amplifies this approach by creating a global recognition system that celebrates ‘outstanding leadership and achievements in advancing the accessibility of digital publications for persons who are print disabled’.Footnote ⁴³

While these global organisations provide leadership and support, the publishing industry itself is increasingly leading the transition towards inclusive publishing workflows. By working with stakeholders in the disability and technology sectors, the industry is driving meaningful change that goes beyond national borders. A number of interesting cross-sector and cross-border collaborations and partnerships have been taking place in Europe, North America, Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand. These efforts represent a paradigm shift from isolated, compliance-driven approaches to holistic, innovation-driven strategies that recognise accessibility as a fundamental aspect of content design, production, and distribution.

Funding the Move to Inclusive Publishing

The financial landscape of inclusive publishing represents a complex ecosystem of challenges, opportunities, and strategic interventions that go far beyond simple monetary support.

Funding the transition to inclusive publishing, where the production of accessible formats is integrated into mainstream publishing, is not merely a financial challenge but a transformation that requires a sophisticated understanding of the publishing industry’s structural complexities. Accessibility implementation is particularly challenging giving the vast disparities in organisational size, resources, and capabilities that characterise the publishing landscape.

Larger publishing companies present a paradoxical scenario. While they have substantial financial resources that they could theoretically dedicate to the implementation process and training, and they are more likely to be involved in corporate responsibility initiatives (Jones Reference Jones2015), their bureaucratic structures often become significant barriers. These complex organisational machines can be remarkably unwieldy and sometimes ineffective, making resource allocations and strategic shifts time-consuming. The process of securing buy-in across multiple departments can become a labyrinthine challenge that delays meaningful progress.

Conversely, smaller companies face a fundamentally different set of constraints. They are nimbler, but they have limited human and financial resources, which impacts how much money they can invest in implementing inclusive publishing workflows. This resource scarcity creates a significant implementation barrier, potentially marginalising smaller publishers in the accessibility transformation.

The EAA demonstrates a nuanced understanding of these challenges by explicitly acknowledging the lower capacity of smaller companies to implement accessibility measures. By exceptions for these businesses, as discussed in Chapter 1, the EAA recognises that a one-size-fits-all approach is ineffective in driving industry-wide accessibility implementation.

Government interventions, as exemplified by countries such as Canada, Italy and the Netherlands, have emerged as critical catalysts in accelerating industry’s transition to inclusive practices. The Canadian example is particularly illuminating. Consistent with its long history of policy interventions aimed at supporting Canadian-owned and -controlled book publishers, which dates back to the 1970s (Boggs Reference Boggs2010), in March 2019 the federal government announced ‘an investment of $22.8 million over five years for the development of an initiative to support the sustainable production and distribution of accessible digital books by Canadian independent publishers’. The Accessible Digital Books Initiative aimed to support collaborative projects focusing on ‘increasing accessible publishing capacity in Canada, helping market and showcase accessible books, developing and promoting best practices and implementing industry standards and certification’ (Government of Canada 2022).

This funding went far beyond mere financial support. It enabled comprehensive research, developed critical training programmes, and enabled many publishers in Canada to implement inclusive publishing workflows, including certification by Benetech (discussed in Chapter 3). The tangible outcome is striking – by June 2024, fifty-four out of eighty-two Benetech-certified organisations were from Canada, and another six Canadian publishers were certified through the International Publishing Program partner eBOUND Canada.Footnote ⁶⁶ This achievement is especially significant given that 78 per cent of Canadian-owned publishers are small firms with ten or fewer employees (Nordicity & ACP 2018).

While funding for the Accessible Digital Books Initiative has not been extended, the Canadian Benetech certification pilot will continue to run. Publishers will be able to get yearly check-ins, and new publishers sign up for certification, for the foreseeable future. Moreover, a new Equitable Access to Reading Program by Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) announced in 2022 has a substantial budget of $21 million to be spent over three years, starting in 2024–2025 (NNELS 2022).

It will be interesting to see how the funding model will evolve in the coming years, and to study its long-term impact on industry practices. While the industry-wide progress in accessibility implementation is clear, over-reliance on government funding can be risky for organisations, particularly if future funding is reduced or discontinued. This dependence can potentially hinder the development of sustainable, self-regulated accessibility practices within the industry. The future of inclusive publishing funding will likely require a dynamic, adaptive approach that balances external support with internal industry transformation. It’s not just about providing financial resources, but about creating sustainable ecosystems that inherently value and implement accessibility.

This chapter has demonstrated that the transition to inclusive publishing requires overcoming significant barriers around knowledge, capacity, cost, and copyright concerns. However, the business case for accessibility is compelling – it expands market reach, enhances brand reputation, reduces legal risks, and creates better products for all users through universal design principles. The successful implementation of inclusive publishing practices relies heavily on strategic collaborations between publishers, disability organisations, and industry bodies, as evidenced by transformative initiatives across Europe, North America, Australia, and beyond. Government funding has also played a crucial role in supporting this transition, particularly for smaller publishers with limited resources. Chapter 3 explores how organisations have been operationalising these insights by embedding accessibility principles throughout their policies, workflows, and quality assurance processes.

Strategic Framework for Organisational Transformation

Having established the urgent need for inclusive publishing, we can turn to proven frameworks for implementing systematic change. The information technology sector, despite its shorter history, offers valuable lessons for publishers seeking to embed accessibility into their operations. The findings from a 2002 survey conducted by Anthony Tusler on behalf of the World Institute of Disability are particularly relevant as they identify best practices (defined as ‘process, procedure, system, or perspective’) that can guide publishers in making their products and services accessible to people with disability.

At the organisational level, Tusler (Reference Tusler2005) emphasises the critical role of an accessibility champion who can ‘learn about disability’; liaise, coordinate work and mediate between ‘the internal divisions and disability informants’; and ‘use community-organizing strategies to create change’. This champion-led approach must be part of a broader strategy to transform organisational values and culture. Companies need to ‘understand the needs and concerns of the disability community’, involve people with disability in the product and process design, and ‘include disability with other diversity efforts’. Crucially, organisations must also ‘define the disability market’, ‘demonstrate the profitability of access’, and ‘tie access to mainstream product needs’ – steps that align particularly well with publishers’ existing expertise in market analysis and product development.

Most importantly, Tusler argues for fundamental transformation by ‘weav[ing] accessibility into the DNA of the company’. This requires developing a strategic plan that aligns access accessibility implementation with the company’s culture, values, and structure. The DNA metaphor emphasises how accessibility and universal design need to be incorporated into existing processes and practices, across all divisions of the company, in a sustainable way. Such deep integration demands active involvement from senior management, ongoing development of accessibility expertise through education and training, and the hiring of people with disability. These efforts must then be publicised internally and externally to promote accessible products, document progress, and further drive the change (Tusler Reference Tusler2005).

While Goggin and Newell raise valid concerns about the DNA concept for ignoring ‘the social shaping of accessibility itself, as well as the complexity and contingency of corporate structure and practice’, the publishing industry can benefit significantly from Tusler’s systematic approach. As they note, ‘bring[ing] about inclusive technology … requires much coordination, commitment, and action between and among noncommercial as well as commercial sectors, institutions, and actors’ (Goggin & Newell Reference Goggin and Newell2007, 162–63). The adoption of inclusive publishing practices demands this same level of coordination, perhaps even more so, given the industry’s centuries-old tradition and complex stakeholder networks. Publishers must therefore adapt these frameworks thoughtfully, acknowledging both the unique challenges of their industry and the transformative potential of systematic accessibility implementation.

Accessibility Policy, Champions, and Communication

Moving from theoretical frameworks to practical implementation, successful publishers have been first establishing clear organisational structures and policies to drive change. The adoption of inclusive publishing workflows requires a company-wide commitment and engagement with each stakeholder involved in the publishing process, both internal and external. This systematic approach directly addresses Tusler’s call for weaving accessibility into organisational DNA, while acknowledging the unique complexities of publishing operations.

Evidence from recent industry surveys underscores both the challenges and progress in this area. A 2020 survey of Australian publishers identified lack of leadership support as one of the key barriers to adoption, highlighting why executive leadership is essential to drive organisational pledge to accessibility, allocate resources, and sign off on accessibility policy (Mrva-Montoya Reference Mrva-Montoya2020a, 22, 26). The critical role of accessibility champions, emphasised in Tusler’s framework, has been validated by industry experience. As Stacy Scott notes, ‘finding a suitably passionate individual is a key action’ (Scott Reference Scott2022, 695). The 2022 UK survey reveals encouraging progress, with 62 per cent of respondents reporting having dedicated accessibility roles or teams, including formal structures such as Bloomsbury’s Accessibility Working Group, the Digital Accessibility Champions Network at Cambridge University Press (Alexander Reference Alexander2022, 700, 702; PAAG 2022) and the Accessibility Working Group at Taylor & Francis (Scott Reference Scott2022, 691–92).

Such champions and teams serve as crucial bridges between internal departments and external stakeholders. Their success in forming partnerships with print-disability agencies, charities, and industry-based groups (Alexander Reference Alexander2022, 702) demonstrates how organisational commitment can extend beyond company boundaries to create broader systemic change. However, while dedicated accessibility roles are vital, the implementation process must permeate all organisational functions.

The comprehensive scope of accessibility implementation becomes clear when examining how it affects each department in a publishing house. Although the organisational structure of a publisher can vary depending on its scope, size, and specialisation, it typically comprises management, editorial, design and production, marketing and sales, rights and permissions, finance and human resources. Each of these roles touches on accessibility, including leadership, as already mentioned.

• The editorial department is responsible for creating a house accessibility style guide; contracting/briefing authors, editors, and illustrators; editing for accessibility; writing or editing alt text; and the creation of accessibility metadata.

• The design department is responsible for the design and layout of books and marketing collateral, ensuring that visual content, such as typography, colour schemes, and layout are usable by people with print disability.

• The production department is responsible for the creation of accessible formats (with appropriate metadata) and platforms, and quality assurance.

• The marketing and sales department is responsible for the dissemination of accessibility metadata and accessible distribution that is ensuring the website, marketing, and promotional campaigns are accessible (including book launch events).

• The rights and permissions department is responsible for providing files for conversion into alternative formats such as braille.

• The finance and accounting department directs resources to support accessibility implementation.

• The human resources department oversees the delivery of training, as well as the recruitment of staff, which should be inclusive of people with different disabilities.

The list of internal stakeholders involved in the publishing process shows the complexity of change required to adopt inclusive publishing practices. But, of course, this complexity is also present in the external environment. Publishing is an inherently collaborative endeavour, and many bigger and smaller publishing houses outsource various aspects of manuscript development and book production, or rely on third-party providers to produce books. All need to be briefed, consulted, and aligned with the accessibility commitment, from authors, freelance editors, and designers to platform providers to ebook conversion houses (Ganner et al. Reference Ganner, Mrva-Montoya, Park and Duncan2023, 34–37).

Across both internal and external production workflows, robust accessibility policies serve as a crucial foundation of organisational commitment to inclusive publishing. Organisational policies ‘are the framework for taking actions’, guiding the processes leading to ‘proactive accessibility’ across workflows, procurement, evaluation techniques, and compliance or quality-assurance monitoring (Lazar et al. Reference Jonathan, Goldstein and Taylor2015, 29–30). An organisation’s policy should inform the development of briefs and guidelines for authors, staff, and vendors, to ensure best practice is followed throughout the publishing process.Footnote ⁶⁷ The policy should also guide co-operation with disability agencies to facilitate a timely response to requests for digital files for specialised conversion.

The importance of comprehensive policy extends beyond production to encompass all aspects of a publisher’s presence. Everything ‘around’ the book also needs to be accessible – any publisher-owned platforms, marketing collateral, websites, catalogues, book and author events, and social media. Furthermore, following Tusler’s emphasis on public commitment, publishers must articulate the ‘accessibility story’ by having accessibility statements on their websites. The impact of such transparency is evident in the ASPIRE project’s work,Footnote ⁶⁸ where accessibility statement scores have become a factor in library procurement decisions (Alexander Reference Alexander2022, 699), demonstrating the business value of public accessibility commitment.

Inclusive Publishing Workflows

While organisational policies provide the framework for change, their successful implementation depends on transforming publishing workflows. The industry’s traditional reliance on a print-first workflow is problematic, as it is driven by the concept of ‘content’ and ‘appearance’ being intrinsically intertwined. This approach, deeply embedded in publishing culture, must evolve to meet accessibility requirements. A digital-first or format-neutral workflow, where content is properly structured from the beginning, and treated independently from the design, offers a more sustainable path forward. This shift in approach allows accessibility features to be automatically embedded throughout the production process, rather than retrofitted at the end.

The scope of this transformation extends beyond simple technical changes. As Simone Murray notes, all books ‘encompass the dual dimensions of text (i.e. the words that are perceptible by readers) and object (i.e. the three-dimensional thing that can be bought, sold, archived or burnt)’ (Murray Reference Murray2020, 4, original italics). Inclusive publishing must address both dimensions, content and its presentation, and not only digital but also print formats. Each stage of the book creation process is affected, from writing to editing to design.

This comprehensive approach aligns with the UN CRPD’s qualified call for universal design, which states that products should be ‘usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design’ (Art. 2; my italics). Similarly, the Inclusive Design Toolkit acknowledges that ‘while inclusive design intends to extend the reach of mainstream products’, it must balance commercial constraints with market needs.Footnote ⁶⁹

The practical implementation of these principles manifests in multiple ways. At the content level, publishers must ensure non-visual and inclusive language, such as replacing sight-dependent phrases like ‘as shown in the figure below’ with more inclusive alternative like ‘as presented in figure 1’. Design considerations include colour-blindness-friendly palettes, and sufficient contrast between text and background (Ganner et al. Reference Ganner, Mrva-Montoya, Park and Duncan2023, 59–60, 141). Digital publications demand particular attention to ensure that ‘all non-text content is also available in text’; the content is presented and operates in predictable ways; and the ebook file is machine-readable and usable by assistive devices and technology, and compatible with current and future technologies by using well-formed and standards-compliant markup and code (W3C WAI 2023). The digital files should be technically robust so that alternative-format providers can easily convert them into more specialised formats such as braille. The widespread adoption of reflowable EPUB3 has simplified this process as EPUB publications ‘can be authored with a high degree of accessibility simply through the proper application of established Web accessibility techniques’ (W3C 2017).

One of the more resource-intensive challenges lies in making non-textual elements accessible. They need to be accompanied by alternative (alt) text (and, in some cases, long text descriptions as well) so they can be read by assistive technologies. Alt text creation requires not just technical skill but deep understanding of context and often subject matter expertise. Success in this area increasingly depends on involving authors early in the process (Kasdorf Reference Kasdorf2018, 14; Ganner et al. Reference Ganner, Mrva-Montoya, Park and Duncan2023, 35). As Cooper et al. (Reference Cooper, Burton and Black2023, 65) observe, ‘authors are not burdened by alt-text, so long as the rationale is clear and appropriate publisher support is available’. Moreover, Scott (Reference Scott2022, 694) also confirms that with the right support, authors ‘provid[e] some wonderful, fully accessible content and enjoying doing so’.

Similar considerations apply to audio and multimedia content: captions/subtitles (a text version of the audio that is shown synchronised in the media player), transcripts (a separate text version of the audio), and descriptions of visual information. They must be thoughtfully crafted to serve both accessibility needs and broader usability goals. WCAG recommends the use of ‘integrated description’ in which ‘all the visual information that users need to understand the content is integrated in the main audio’ (W3C WAI 2021). While captions and transcripts are typically aimed at individuals who are Deaf and those with hearing impairments, they also make content accessible to a broader audience by providing a visual representation of spoken, additional context; clarifying dialogue; and enhancing the learning experience by reinforcing the spoken audio. Transcripts are also useful for anyone who prefers to read the content or wants to quickly scan the information without watching the video.

The prevailing advice about the creation of alt text and audio descriptions calls for an objective and self-effacing approach, ‘a neutral, unobtrusive act of translation that moves information from one medium into another’. However, Kleege and Wallin (Reference Kleege and Wallin2015) argue for the need to ‘explore strategies that vary depending upon the context of audience, material, and critical and aesthetic goals’ in the production of audio description. Similar factors should be considered when providing alt text in books. For example, descriptions of images in a children’s book should be consistent with its narrative and visual aesthetics.

Whether written by authors or created by vendors or editorial staff, alt text, long descriptions, audio descriptions, transcripts, and captioning should go through the same editorial process as the rest of the manuscript, to assess their accuracy and relevance and to avoid the repetition of information already covered in the manuscript. It is therefore crucial that publishers think, plan, and assign responsibilities for the creation of alternative text and captions at the beginning of the publication process (Ganner et al. Reference Ganner, Mrva-Montoya, Park and Duncan2023, 35–36).

Despite the clear rationale for thinking about accessibility from the outset, and embedding it in the whole publishing process, some publishers still address accessibility considerations only at the end of the ebook production process. The approach taken with frontlist titles depends on how ebooks are produced (in-house or outsourced); whether the publisher relies on a print-first, digital-first, or format-neutral workflow; and the stage of the publisher’s accessibility journey, with inclusive publishing practice being the ultimate goal (Mrva-Montoya Reference Mrva-Montoya2020a, 17–18; Reference Mrva-Montoya2022b, 743). While backlist titles will inevitably require remediation, the cost and effort involved in retrofitting accessibility features underscores the importance of adopting a born-accessible workflow from the start.

As Bill Kasdorf (Reference Kasdorf2018, 17) notes, while ‘ “born digital” does not guarantee “born accessible” ’, the effort required to produce accessible content in digital-first or format-neutral workflow is substantially less than in conventional publishing practices. The American Physical Society demonstrated this potential as early as 2010 by pioneering the use of the DAISY XML format for journal publishing (Gardner et al. Reference Gardner, Bulatov and Kelly2009). Their experience, along with other early adopters, shows that while the transition to inclusive workflows requires significant initial investment, it ultimately creates more efficient and sustainable publishing processes.

Quality Assurance and Certification

The shift towards inclusive publishing workflows raises a critical question: how can publishers ensure their accessibility efforts are actually effective? While quality control has always been an integral part of the book publishing process, with publishers described as ‘the guardians of truth because of [their] rigorous approach to content selection, enhancement and production’ (Publishers Association 2019), accessibility introduces new dimensions of complexity that challenge traditional quality assurance approaches.

In the case of print publications, publishers have always been in control of the reader experience by making decisions about the book design and layout, the choice of typefaces, and paper quality. This is different with digital books, particularly with reflowable EPUB files, where the reading experience relies to a great degree on ‘the usability of the device and of the specific software used to render the EPUB file on that device’ (Sandusky Reference Sandusky, McGuire and O’Leary2012). Accessibility adds further complexity by introducing assistive technologies to the mix as well as the need for discovery and procurement requirements.

Effective accessibility implementation requires a comprehensive, multi-layered testing approach that goes beyond simple technical validation. At the content level, all elements – from main text to image descriptions – must be rigorously evaluated for ‘accuracy, clarity and completeness’ through an accessibility-focused editorial process. This human review ensures that accessibility features not only exist but genuinely serve their intended purpose. Technical validation forms the next critical layer, with tools like EPUBCheck verifying basic file integrity and specialised accessibility checkers such as Ace by DAISY examining EPUB-specific accessibility features. However, technical validation alone cannot guarantee real-world usability. Publications must also undergo cross-device testing to verify consistent functionality across different reading systems and assistive technologies. Most crucially, direct testing by users with print disability provides essential insights that automated tools and standard review processes cannot capture. As Ganner et al. (Reference Ganner, Mrva-Montoya, Park and Duncan2023, 190–92) emphasise, such user testing becomes particularly valuable during the initial implementation of inclusive publishing workflows, when publishers are still developing their understanding of practical accessibility requirements.

The scope and complexity of these testing requirements helps explain publishers’ current lack of confidence in their accessibility implementation. A 2020 survey of Australian publishers revealed that none felt ‘extremely confident’ about the accessibility of their publications, while 50 per cent were only ‘somewhat confident’. Even those with improved workflows and guidelines expressed uncertainty about their final outputs, particularly when the production was outsourced (Mrva-Montoya Reference Mrva-Montoya2020a). The situation appears little changed in 2022, with only 26 per cent of educational publishers reporting that they conducted formal accessibility compliance checks (Mrva-Montoya Reference Mrva-Montoya2022a, 743). As industry expert Jens Tröger observes, publishers’ lack of confidence in their final outputs directly correlates with their lack of trust in their workflows and testing tools.Footnote ⁷⁰

To address these challenges, the industry has developed various certification approaches. Fondazione LIA, operating since 2014, offers Italian publishers, as well as international players, a file-level conformance-checking service through their VCC (Verification, Conversion and Certification) platform. Their process combines automated testing with manual verification, resulting in algorithmically generated ONIX 3.0 accessibility characteristics and a certification label for validated ebooks.Footnote ⁷¹ In contrast, Benetech’s Global Certified Accessible (GCA) programme takes a more comprehensive approach, assessing and certifying entire publisher workflows rather than individual files. Certified publishers are granted the GCA certification ‘seal of approval’ and can include information that the title is certified by Benetech’s Global Certified Accessible credential in the EPUB Schema metadata.Footnote ⁷²

However, certification programmes alone may not guarantee industry-wide transformation. Writing in the context of the sustainability movement, Poynton (Reference Poynton2017, 29) raises fundamental concerns about certification schemes, arguing they often ‘fail to deliver industry-wide transformation, all the while becoming an industry in its own right’. His critique has particular relevance for accessibility certification, where high costs present a significant barrier to adoption. The Benetech certification programme, for instance, costs US$2,400–$9,600 for accreditation and US$1,800–$7,200 for annual certification (August 2024), putting it out of reach for many organisations, especially smaller publishers. Beyond cost barriers, Poynton identifies an ‘excessive reliance on “outsiders” and not on local capacity’ as a critical weakness (Poynton Reference Poynton2017, 33). Perhaps most troubling is his observation that certification systems have proven ineffective in ‘achieving deep, sector-wide transformation’, typically reaching ‘no more than 10% of any industry in which they operate’ (Poynton Reference Poynton2017, 36). These limitations suggest the need to rethink how certification programmes can better serve the goal of industry-wide accessibility implementation.

Poynton’s alternative ‘Values, Transparency, Transformation and Verification’ (VT-TV) model offers valuable insights for accessibility implementation. At its foundation, strong organisational values should inform policy and its execution, at every level. Transparency serves as a crucial second step, requiring companies to conduct thorough audits of their processes and supply chains to identify accessibility barriers and improvement opportunities. This transparent assessment creates the foundation for meaningful change. The transformation stage is described as a journey during which the organisation implements training, develops projects, builds capacity, learns, and innovates. Critical to this stage is the integration of external partners (such as freelancers and ebook-conversion houses in the case of publishing) who must align with the organisation’s accessibility commitments. Success depends on robust reporting mechanisms to understand and reflect on progress and inspire change internally and externally. The final verification process introduces a paradigm shift from traditional paid certification programmes, which often presents conflict of interest, towards a more dynamic system of local verification by NGOs. This approach, which can be funded through industry memberships, foundations, or government support (Poynton Reference Poynton2017, 39–65), provides more authentic and contextualised feedback on accessibility progress, as demonstrated by the operation of Fondazione LIA.

The contrasting approaches of Benetech and Fondazione LIA illustrate these principles in practice. LIA’s localised approach, with tiered membership based on publisher size, has achieved remarkable industry engagement – reaching 80 per cent of Italian trade publishers and 60 per cent of educational publishers. Their platform now hosts over 35,000 accessible ebooks, demonstrating how accessibility certification can scale when adapted to local industry conditions.Footnote ⁷³

While certification systems offer significant advantages – providing clear roadmaps, guidelines, and resources for organisations to follow, while building credibility and confidence in consumers – they must be carefully designed to avoid potential pitfalls. The challenge lies in preventing certification from becoming a mere checkbox exercise that prioritises technical compliance over genuine accessibility and usability. Success requires striking a delicate balance: maintaining rigorous standards while ensuring the system remains practical and adaptable for organisations of varying sizes and capabilities. This balanced approach ensures that certification drives meaningful accessibility improvements rather than simply creating administrative burden.

Accessible Book Supply Chain

While certification systems provide valuable guidance for accessibility implementation, their success ultimately depends on the broader publishing ecosystem and supply chain. Publishers are key drivers in creating accessible publications, but they must also ensure these books are discoverable and available to people with print disability to address what Harpur and Stein (Reference Harpur, Ashley Stein, Stein and Lazar2021, 194) identify as a critical market failure underpinning the book famine. This challenge plays out across a complex supply chain involving distributors, libraries, hardware manufacturers, and software providers who all mediate access to books.

Within this complex ecosystem, publishers are responsible for the production of accessible books and the creation and distribution of accessibility metadata. This metadata serves as a crucial bridge, enabling readers with print disability to discover suitable content outside specialist libraries while allowing publishers to measure the impact of their accessibility work (eBOUND Canada 2024, 10). However, as Fondazione LIA’s 2022 white paper highlights, despite the availability of metadata standards and guidance, information rarely reaches end users due to supply chain participants lacking awareness and technical knowledge of accessibility metadata implementation and visibility (Fondazione LIA 2022).

Recent developments demonstrate both progress and persistent challenges. In July 2023, EDItEUR, a standards organisation, expanded accessibility metadata in ONIX (an XML-based standard for rich book metadata) as part of Codelist 196 values to make them more descriptive (EDItEUR 2023), including information about conformance to standards or certification. Yet adoption remains limited – many metadata management systems don’t include the up-to-date Codelist 196 values, and few distributors display them. The technical nature of accessibility metadata creates barriers for both publishers and end users (EDRLab 2022). This is evidenced by the 2022 UK survey, whereby only 38 per cent of respondents included Schema accessibility data with EPUB files, 14 per cent of publishers included accessibility metadata in the ONIX Codelist 196, while 43 per cent of publishers provided no accessibility metadata whatsoever (Alexander Reference Alexander2022, 699; PAAG 2022).

The library sector adds another layer of complexity through its use of MARC21 (MAchine-Readable Cataloguing) Records for bibliographic data (Library of Congress 2009). Despite the 2018 addition of dedicated accessibility fields: 341 Accessibility Content (a machine-readable field that requires controlled vocabulary) and 532 Accessibility Note (a free-text summary of the accessibility features, hazards, and deficiencies of a resource), library adoption remains limited (Accessible Libraries 2023). Organisations such as eBOUND Canada (2024) and the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) are working to address these challenges through international best practices and guidelines on the recording and use of accessibility metadata. At the same time, W3C’s ongoing work on metadata standards (W3C 2024a, 2024b), and user experience guides (W3C 2021) promises to make accessibility information more comprehensible and useful across the supply chain.

The importance of an accessible supply chain has been recognised in legislation like the EAA, which mandates accessibility across products and services, including hardware, operating systems, ebooks, reading software, and ecommerce (25). Even if accessibility metadata is rarely displayed at this stage on mainstream ecommerce sites or in public libraries, it is important that publishers provide this information in preparation for when such displays become the norm. Much of the work required for ecommerce sites to be accessible is tied up with ensuring compliance with web accessibility standards. While global corporations such as Amazon (2022) and Google (n.d.) have been working on ensuring their devices and services accessible, VitalSource and Redshelf, both certified by Benetech as accessible providers of textbooks and other digital learning resources, lead in displaying accessibility metadata to the users.Footnote ⁷⁴

The library sector, with its established history of accessible service provision (see Wentz et al. Reference Wentz, Jaeger and Carlo Bertot2015) and recognition as an ‘authorized entity’ under the Marrakesh Treaty, continues to drive innovation through initiatives like the Canadian Public Library Accessibility Resource Centre,Footnote ⁷⁵ demonstrating the potential for systematic change when stakeholders embrace accessibility as a core value.

While this chapter has demonstrated that successful implementation of inclusive publishing requires systematic transformation across organisational structures, workflows, quality assurance processes, and supply chains, format accessibility represents just one dimension of truly inclusive publishing. The industry’s focus on creating born-accessible publications, though crucial, must be accompanied by broader cultural and structural changes aligned with human rights model of disability. The next chapter examines three critical intersections of disability and publishing that demand equal attention: the severe underrepresentation of people with disability in publishing workforce, the limited presence of disabled characters and experiences in published content, and the ongoing challenges around inclusive and accessible language practices in editorial workflows.

Inclusive Workplaces

Publishers have historically acted as gatekeepers of ideas (Coser Reference Coser1975, 15). According to Nancy Roberts, this traditional role becomes problematic when publishing houses lack staff diversity, as it negatively impacts both how diverse authors are treated and the overall diversity of published works. Yet, as Roberts notes, ‘the publishing sector has been slow to react to the increasing importance of diversity and inclusion’ (Roberts Reference Roberts2021, 260). This institutional inertia has created a persistent barrier to innovation, especially in accessibility initiatives. Without employees with disabilities – including those with print disability – publishers are missing out on diverse perspectives, better understanding of the needs and preferences of people with print disability, and their expertise in assistive technologies. As a disability-rights lawyer Haben Girma compellingly argues, ‘Employees with disabilities drive innovation. Disability creates a constraint, and embracing constraints spurs inventive solutions’ (Reference Girma2017).

The transformative potential of including disabled perspectives is powerfully demonstrated in adjacent cultural sectors, particularly theatre and performance studies (see Hadley Reference Hadley, Reason, Conner, Johanson and Walmsley2022) and the gallery and museum sector. Rieger and colleagues document how the codesign process not only created an accessible and inclusive exhibition, but fundamentally shifted institutional culture from superficial and surface-level accommodations towards genuine inclusion where access is seen ‘as central to curatorial methodology’ (Rieger et al. Reference Rieger, Hadley, Barron, Boulton, Parker and Cachia2023, 182–83). Similarly, Georgina Kleege’s insights on art accessibility reveal the deeper implications of inclusive design:

This transformative potential remains largely untapped in publishing, where the inclusion of people with print disability in developing books, textbooks, and platforms could revolutionise not just accessibility implementation but the fundamental nature of reading and knowledge dissemination.

Much of the discourse around diversity and inclusion in Australia, Canada, the UK, and the United States has centred on race, gender, and sexual orientation diversity, in the context of publishing industries that are overwhelmingly white, female, heterosexual, and middle class. While this focus has intensified in response to ‘the historical, cultural, and legal developments in the latter part of the twentieth century’ (Calvard Reference Calvard2021, 1), and gained particular momentum following the Black Lives Matter movement of 2020, disability representation remains notably absent from many of these conversations. This gap between different aspects of diversity efforts highlights the need for a more comprehensive approach to inclusion that addresses intersecting forms of marginalisation within publishing.

This gap between diversity efforts and disability representation has deep consequences for the publishing industry’s approach to accessibility. As Kenny Fries (Reference Fries2018) writes, ‘disability is too often excluded in discussions of diversity, a good deal of which, for good reason, focuses on race. This silence is especially noteworthy because disability crosses racial, gender, sexuality, class, and national boundaries. This lack of discussion, and inclusion, of disability is reflected in publishing’. When publishing workplaces lack employees with print disability, they miss crucial lived experience that could inform accessibility initiatives at every stage of production. The scale of this representational crisis remains difficult to quantify – notably in the context of this book, there exists no specific data on employment rates of people with print disability in publishing, with available statistics only capturing broad categories of disability and long-term health conditions combined. This absence of granular data itself reflects the industry’s limited engagement with disability as a vital aspect of workplace diversity.

The industry surveys also fail to capture the complex reality of intersectional identities. The concept of intersectionality, first coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw (Reference Crenshaw1989) to refer to the specific oppression black women face on account of being black and female, is particularly relevant to inclusive publishing as it brings attention to how disability intersects with other aspects of identity such as race, gender, sexuality, and class. To paraphrase Crenshaw, the intersectional experience is greater than the sum of disability and other forms of discrimination, creating unique barriers and challenges that demand nuanced understanding. Alice Wong, for example, powerfully illustrates how different aspects of identity can compound the challenges of working in the publishing industry. As a disabled person of colour, she has faced systemic racism and disability discrimination as intertwined problems (Wong Reference Wong2023). Dutch YA writer and activist Marieke Nijkamp, who is autistic, non-binary and queer, has also spoken about their experiences of marginalisation, noting that their voice was ‘seen as less important than that of a neurotypical person’ (Haller Reference Haller2024, 151).

Yet these vital intersectional experiences remain obscured in industry surveys that persist in employing a single-axis approach to discrimination. Blackham et al. (Reference Blackham, Ryan and Ruppanner2023, 40) acknowledge that while ‘intersectionality offers important ideas to advance and extend understandings of inequality, it can be difficult to operationalise in practice’. This methodological challenge represents a critical blind spot in the industry’s efforts to understand and address workplace diversity.

Industry surveys provide crucial baseline data for understanding representation gaps, though their current structure often fails to capture the nuanced reality of disability in publishing workplaces. The following data reveal not only current representation levels but also highlights specific areas where the industry needs to improve to create genuinely inclusive workplaces.

The first Diversity Baseline Survey of publishing houses and review journals was conducted in 2015 by Lee & Low Books, the largest multicultural children’s book publisher in the United States. Only 7.6 per cent of respondents reported having a disability. Designers (18 per cent) and book reviewers (12 per cent) showed higher representation of disability than the industry average, likely due to the higher prevalence of freelancing opportunities that enable working from home – a crucial accessibility factor for people with limited mobility (Lee & Bow Books 2016). In the 2019 survey, 11 per cent of staff and 22 per cent of interns self-reported a disability with mental illness (45 per cent), physical disability (22 per cent), and chronic illness (20 per cent) comprising the majority. The higher diversity among interns suggested a promising trend, contingent on these individuals remaining in the workforce (Lee & Bow Books 2020). By 2023, disability representation had increased to 16.2 per cent of respondents identified as being disabled, with significant growth across all departments: ‘Marketing & Publicity rose from 10% to 20%; Editorial from 12% to 18.9%; Reviewers from 19% to 26.2%; and Interns from 22% to 27.6%’, potentially reflecting the wider adoption of remote and hybrid work (Lee & Bow Books 2024).

Canadian publishing has shown similar trends. The Association of Canadian Publishers’ 2018 survey of reported almost 17 per cent of respondents having a disability (2019, 2), rising substantially to 26 per cent in the 2022. This increase has been attributed to the long-term impact of COVID-19 and a decrease in stigma around chronic illness, neurodiversities, and mental health issues (Association of Canadian Publishers 2023, 10, 24).

In the UK, disability representation in publishing has grown steadily, from 2 per cent in 2017 to 6.6 per cent in 2019 (Publishers Association 2020, 59) and 8 per cent in 2020 (Publishers Association 2021, 20), reaching 13 per cent reported having a disability or long-term health condition in 2021, with mental illness accounting for almost half. Yet these figures remain well below the broader UK’s working-age population, where 20 per cent people report disability and 33 per cent indicate long-term health condition (Publishers Association 2022, 25–26). By 2022, the figure rose to 16 per cent (Publishers Association 2023).

The UK Publishers Association responded in 2023 with an ‘Inclusivity Action Plan’ outlining ten commitments for 2023–2026. This comprehensive initiative mandates senior leadership-driven policies, accountability frameworks, data collection and industry-wide standards, staff inclusivity training, flexible working options, clear paths for career progression, mentoring for underrepresented groups, targeted hiring, pay equity and salary transparency, and notably, ensuring ‘output is accessible, authentic and inclusive including content, design, imagery and language’ (Publisher Association, n.d.).

Australia’s first Publishing Industry Workforce Survey on Diversity and Inclusion in 2022 revealed that while 24.7 per cent of publishing professionals reported living with a disability or long-term physical or mental health condition, only 5.2 per cent of respondents explicitly identified as disabled (Driscoll & Bowen Reference Driscoll and Bowen2023, 318). Similarly to the UK, this number is much lower than the estimation by the Australian Disability Network (n.d.) that 17.8 per cent of females and 17.6 per cent of males in Australia live with disability. In response to the findings, the Australian Publishers Association (APA) established a Diversity & Inclusion Working Group and in January 2024 launched the Diversity and Inclusion Plan 2024–25, which, in addition to improving diversity of the workforce, aims to focus on ‘disability and neurodiversity’, and ‘inclusive publishing formats and accessible content’ (APA 2024).

Crucially, none of these surveys identify the percentage of employees with print disability specifically, which is likely to be much smaller. One of those is Stacy Scott, Head of Accessibility at Taylor & Francis, and the Chair of the Publishing Accessibility Action Group (PAAG) in the UK. Another is Simon Holt, Accessible Publishing and Disability Inclusion Champion at Elsevier, also based in the UK. Holt and colleagues advocate for more detailed disability data collection and understanding of required workplace adjustments to enhance inclusion in scholarly publishing (Holt et al. Reference Holt, Hunter, Osborne-Martin and Scott2023). Future industry surveys, however, must also seek data about intersectional inequalities to drive meaningful, sustainable improvements in workforce diversity.

While industry surveys reveal important trends in disability representation, transforming publishing workplaces into truly accessible spaces requires concrete action and structural change. In order to open the publishing industry to people with print and other disabilities, workplaces themselves need to be accessible. The Inklusion Guide, launched in the UK in 2022, represents a significant step forward by providing best-practice accessibility provisions to help organisations deliver inclusive online and face-to-face events, alongside practical advice on hiring disabled staff. The guide establishes clear requirements for companies: accommodating any access needs, providing flexible working and working from home options, appointing dedicated access officers, implementing disability and accessibility training for all staff, and engaging access consultants (Carpenter Reference Carpenter2022; Inklusion Guide 2022, 88).

Within the scholarly publishing sector specifically, the Coalition for Diversity and Inclusion in Scholarly Communications has advanced this work through their C4DISC Toolkit for Disability Equity in Scholarly Communications. This resource equips both employees and employers with guidance on flexible working arrangement and workplace adjustments, fostering inclusive conversations around disability at work, and ensuring supportive hiring and induction processes (C4DISC 2023).

Representations of Disability

While creating accessible and inclusive workplaces is crucial, equally important is ensuring that published content itself reflects and speaks to diverse experiences. It is critical that people with print disability not only have access to books but also encounter representation of themselves in stories and published content. Arguably the most common genre written by people with disability are memoirs and autobiographical works. As Thomas Couser notes, personal narratives about disability have grown increasingly prominent since the 1990, emerging alongside and amplifying the disability rights movement. Through these accounts, writers are simultaneously sharing their lived experiences with readers and reclaiming agency over how disability is portrayed in literature (Couser Reference Couser2003, Reference Couser2018). Matthew Rubery’s (Reference Rubery2022) discussion of dyslexia memoirs provides a particularly insightful illustration on how valuable personal testimony has been to developing understanding of what it means to experience dyslexia and how it shapes one’s interaction with printed text.

While personal narratives have carved out crucial space for authentic disability representation, the broader literary landscape remains complex and often problematic. Many historical works by disabled authors remain disconnected from their creators’ lived experiences. Take Australian literature, where deafness profoundly shaped the writing of celebrated authors Henry Lawson and Judith Wright, as scholars Amanda Tink and Jessica White have demonstrated. Yet most readers encounter their works without any awareness of this fundamental aspect of their creative lives. This systematic overlooking of disability in literary history reinforces harmful assumptions about who can create literature. As Tink and White argue, ‘This creates the impression writing is something disabled people can’t do’ – perpetuating a self-defeating cycle where disabled writers remain invisible even as their works endure.Footnote ⁷⁶

This invisibility extends beyond individual authors to shape broader cultural attitudes about disability literature. As Kenny Fries observes, ‘Writing by disabled writers has often [been] seen more as “therapy” than art. Disabled protagonists are not seen as universal, despite the fact that all of us, at one time or another in our lives, will be, either temporarily or permanently, disabled’ (Fries Reference Fries2018). While Fries highlights these reductive attitudes, the literary significance of disability writing transcends such narrow categorisation. This tension between authentic representation and literary reception is further illuminated by Claire Barker and Stuart Murray, who argue that the ‘literary representations of disability, whether realist or non-realist, social/political or fantastical, open up our understanding of the multiplicities inherent within disability experiences’ (Barker & Murray Reference Barker, Murray, Barker and Murray2018, 11).

As Barker and Murray further demonstrate, ‘Disability is everywhere in literature’, though it rarely stands independently in the narrative. Instead, it is typically conceptualised within complex cultural and social contexts, intersecting with fundamental questions about what defines humanity while simultaneously triggering opposing societal reactions that frame disabled individuals as either ‘deviant’ or ‘special’. The concept of disability also tends to evoke powerful emotional responses including shock, fear, and pity, while serving as a focus for spiritual and philosophical contemplation. Crucially, they argue that ‘disability is made to work primarily as a metaphor, a textual device that, precisely because of the ways in which it reconfigures what disability means, ultimately has little to say about the actual lives experienced by those with disabilities’ (Barker & Murray Reference Barker, Murray, Barker and Murray2018, 1–2).

The literary reduction of disability to metaphor becomes particularly evident in genre fiction, where specific disability tropes have become codified into the storytelling framework itself. In fact, genre fiction commonly features recurring representations of disability that serve as recognisable motifs or ‘icons’ within specific genre contexts. These disability representations aren’t random but rather carry particular emotional and symbolic weight, functioning as established literary devices that align with and reinforce familiar narrative patterns and genre conventions (Cheyne Reference Cheyne2019, 7). Horror stories, for example, often fall into a problematic pattern when portraying disabled characters, typically casting them in one of two extreme roles: either as threatening villains or as helpless victims. Romance novel readers might expect a common but problematic story arc: a character with a disability will somehow be ‘healed’ or ‘cured’ as part of their journey to romantic fulfilment. This trope suggests that disability is incompatible with love and happiness. Yet, as Madison Nankervis argues, ‘Everyone deserves to see themselves written in the pages of the book, they deserve to see that they get a happy ending, that they get love. Increasing diversity in romance novels is a necessity, not an option’ (Nankervis Reference Nankervis2022, 361).

Nankervis also highlights the persistent lack of neurodivergence and disability representation in romance novels, while acknowledging pioneering authors such as Helen Hoang and Talia Hibbert who are leading crucial change. Significantly, she notes that the self-publishing industry has proven far more successful at producing diverse content than traditional publishing houses (Nankervis Reference Nankervis2022, 361).

The challenges of representation in genre fiction mirror equally significant gaps in children’s literature, where authentic disability representation could have profound developmental impact. The results of a qualitative study involving 475 students in a public elementary school in the United States, published in 2014, show that ‘Through exploring characters in books, children not only learned about various disabilities, but they came to understand characters with disabilities as full and complex beings, similar in many ways to themselves’ (Adomat Reference Adomat2014). This is consistent with findings from studies on human brain development and healthy cognitive function, which shows that increasing children’s exposure to diversity at an early stage is crucial, as children aged 3–5 years old already show ‘preferences based on what is most familiar to them, and discriminatory behaviour is influenced by biased perception’ (Penrose Reference Penrose2023, 171).

A positive impact is possible only if a disability-related theme is present in a book in the first place and it is presented in an inclusive way, which is not always the case. Findings from a 2010 review of 100 children’s books featuring disability available to schoolchildren in the UK suggested that while there were ‘some good examples of inclusive literature “out there”, discriminatory language and/or negative stereotypes about disability continue[d] to be present in a range of more contemporary children’s books’ (Beckett et al. Reference Beckett, Ellison, Barrett and Shah2010, 373).

In 2016, Linda Gilmore and Glenn Howard published a review of fifty children’s books that tackle individual differences and disabilities. They concluded that ‘each book has the potential to increase awareness, knowledge, understanding and acceptance of those who are different’. However, they noted ‘a very limited empirical base to demonstrate the effectiveness of children’s books for promoting awareness, knowledge, understanding and acceptance of diversity’ (Gilmore & Howard Reference Gilmore and Howard2016, 243).

The disconnect between potential impact and actual representation remains stark. Despite the potential to affirm the identity and experiences of disabled children and foster a culture of inclusion, empathy, and respect, the US-based Cooperative Children’s Book Center’s 2019 study found that only 3.4 per cent of children’s books featured main characters with disability (CCBC 2020). This number grew modestly to 4 per cent in the 2022 study of books, with main characters having a range of ‘physical, cognitive, neurological, and psychiatric’ disabilities, while 6 per cent of books were classified as being as ‘about’ disability (CCBC 2023a), where ‘the main character/subject or a significant secondary character is disabled or the subject of the book is about disabilities or the disability experiences’ (CCBC 2023b). To give these numbers context, the Pew Research reported that in the 2021–2022 school year, disabled students made up 15 per cent of national public school enrolment in the United States (Gilmore & Howard Reference Gilmore and Howard2016, 245), while up to 27 per cent of Americans reported some type of a disability in 2023, including 4.8 per cent of US adults who have a vision disability (Center for Disease Control and Prevention 2023).

These stark statistics reflect deeper systemic issues within the publishing industry. In her analysis of disability representation in children’s books, Margaret Kingsbury (Reference Kingsbury2021) identifies persistent barriers that disabled writers and illustrators face when seeking publication. These barriers include widespread prejudice against disabled characters and their creators, where individuals with disability are portrayed as pitiable, superhuman, evil, burdens, or objects of inspiration, rather than as fully realised individuals. The challenges are even greater for authors and characters with intersecting marginalised identities. Kingsbury further emphasises that the publishing process itself, including industry events, remain largely inaccessible to disabled creators.

Kingsbury links the marked increase in interest in books with disabled main characters since the Black Lives Matter movement to the greater interest in diversity in general. As she writes, ‘Uplifting marginalized voices for one group does help to uplift other marginalized voices, though specifically addressing some of the unique problems groups of people face is also important’ (Kingsbury Reference Kingsbury2021).

To improve the representation of disabled narratives, Kingsbury calls for publishers to employ more people with disability and publish more books by disabled creators. To do so, publishers need to make sure their workplaces, publishing workflows, and events are accessible, and provide staff training on ableism and disability. In terms of content, Kingsbury calls for publishers to ‘publish more books with disabled characters that aren’t “about” disability’, hire sensitivity readers to avoid reproducing stereotypes, and work with disability organisations (Kingsbury Reference Kingsbury2021). For example, Alice Wong, founder and director of the US-based Disability Visibility Project, an online community focused on producing, distributing, and amplifying disability media and culture, has edited and written books showcasing first-person accounts of the modern disability experience, which were published by Penguin Random House (e.g. Wong Reference Wong2020, Reference Wong2022, Reference Wong2024). Nevertheless, such books remain rare in the list of large publishers.

While major publishers have been slow to change, individuals and organisations operating outside mainstream publishing have stepped in to improve the representation of diverse voices. As Penrose notes, ‘more children’s books on disabilities are being self-published by authors who have personal experience with or connection to the disability’ (Penrose Reference Penrose2023, 174). For example, in 2023, Vision Australia released a series of Big Visions books. In addition to featuring individuals living with blindness – Matt Formston (a professional surfer), Craig Shanahan (a chef and cafe owner), and Nikki Hind (a fashion designer) – each book contains braille alongside printed text.Footnote ⁷⁷ While these books are aimed particularly at children with low or no vision, the fact that they were published in collaboration with a small press, Berbay Publishing, and are distributed by Simon and Schuster, indicates a goal of reaching a wider audience and prompting conversations about the different ways of reading.

All publishers need to pay attention to how characters with disability are presented. They should not be used as inspiration for non-disabled people in what Stella Young described as ‘inspiration porn’ in her TEDxSydney talk in 2014 (Young Reference Young2014; Penrose Reference Penrose2023, 174). Similarly, Haben Girma advocates for creating positive disability stories by focusing on the perspective of the disabled person, avoiding assumptions, and moving beyond the inspiration cliché when writing about disabled individuals (Girma Reference Girma2016).

The Power of Words

While initiatives like Vision Australia’s Big Visions series demonstrate progress in representation and physical accessibility through braille inclusion, the publishing industry must also grapple with fundamental questions of language use. It must navigate two distinct, but interconnected, imperatives: creating inclusive content that authentically represents diverse perspectives, and ensuring that content remains accessible to readers of all abilities.

Ideally, books and other publishing outputs should be both inclusive and accessible, recognising the importance of acknowledging and representing diverse perspectives and making sure the content is usable by as many people as possible. These are two different imperatives. According to the Linguistic Society of America (2016), ‘Inclusive language acknowledges diversity, conveys respect to all people, is sensitive to differences, and promotes equal opportunities.’ This speaks to representation and dignity. In contrast, accessible language is about being ‘Able to be (readily) understood or appreciated’ (Oxford English Dictionary). It is about writing content in a way that allows users, regardless of ability and circumstance, to get the information they need, sometimes requiring simplified versions of content to be produced. While a text might perfectly represent diverse perspectives, it fails if readers cannot engage with its content. Conversely, perfectly accessible writing falls short if it perpetuates exclusionary viewpoints or erases marginalised voices.

The publishing industry must therefore embrace a dual commitment: crafting content that both honours human diversity and ensures reading equity. This requires careful attention to both what we say and how we say it, recognising that words hold the power to both include and exclude, to illuminate and to obscure. The future of publishing lies in mastering this delicate balance.

The disability rights movement that emerged in 1960s America fundamentally transformed how society discusses and conceptualises disability. Alongside other minority groups, disability activists fought for equal treatment, access, and opportunity, recognising that lasting change required dismantling both institutional barriers and entrenched societal attitudes (ADL 2017). Their efforts sparked extensive academic research examining disability terminology, media representation, and technological access, creating a rich framework that powerfully informs modern media practices, including publishing (e.g. Riley II Reference Riley2012; Ellis & Goggin Reference Ellis and Goggin2015; Ellis et al. Reference Katie, Goggin, Haller and Curtis2019).

Contemporary publishers face critical decisions about disability language that reflect deeper societal and cultural tensions. At the heart of this discourse lies the distinction between person-first versus identity-first approach. The person-first approach (‘people with print disability’) focuses on people rather than on their medical condition(s). In contrast, identity-first or disability-first language (‘print-disabled people’) positions disability as an identity category and signifies belonging to a cultural group (PWDA 2021, 6). The person-first approach, enshrined in the US Disabilities Act (1990), marked a revolutionary shift by emphasising individual humanity over medical conditions. It was seen as a significant step in the disability rights movement as it helped ‘create a message about people with disabilities that contrasted with narrow stereotypes and misleading myths of the past’ (Haller et al. Reference Haller, Dorries and Rahn2006, 66).

Yet language evolves with cultural understanding. The disability rights community has increasingly embraced identity-first language, aligned with the social model of disability that located disability ‘not an innate characteristic of the individual, but rather it is societal attitudes and structures that make people disabled’. Identity-first language acknowledges disability as an integral part of a person, without any derogatory connotations, diverging from the perspective that frames it as a medical issue in need of a cure. Instead, it ‘recognizes disability as a culture, promoting autonomy, agency, and choice over one’s destiny’ (Best et al. Reference Best, Ben Mortenson, Lauzière-Fitzgerald and Smith2022, 127). This shift reflects a broader movement towards disability pride and self-determination, challenging publishers to thoughtfully navigate these evolving linguistic preferences while respecting the diverse perspectives within disability communities.

The landscape of disability language in Australia reflects a nuanced interplay between institutional practice and personal identity. Government bodies and advocacy organisations like People with Disability Australia (PWDA) typically embrace person-first language, while many individuals within disability communities prefer identity-first terminology. This divergence highlights how language choices carry deep personal and political significance.

The fundamental principle, as Joanne Arciuli and Tom Shakespeare (Reference Arciuli, Shakespeare and Jeffress2023, 20) compellingly argue, is to: ‘call people what they want to be called’. This deceptively simple directive demands careful attention to individual preferences while avoiding problematic euphemisms such as ‘differently abled’, which can turn into dysphemism. For example, the term ‘special needs’, once intended as a respectful alternative, now carries negative connotations that demonstrate how language evolves with cultural understanding. Similarly, the word ‘cripple’ has undergone a remarkable transformation, reclaimed by some within disability communities as what Haller et al. (Reference Haller, Dorries and Rahn2006, 65) describe as ‘a source of militant pride’.

These linguistic complexities deepen when considering intersectional identities and cultural variations. Language preferences shift not only across English-speaking countries (Arciuli & Shakespeare Reference Arciuli, Shakespeare and Jeffress2023, 20, 23), but also within distinct cultural communities. The Deaf community offers a powerful example, as explored by Ladd (Reference Ladd2003), where language choices intertwine with cultural identity in ways that may differ significantly from other disability communities. This intersection of disability, culture, and identity creates a rich tapestry of language preferences that defies one-size-fits-all solutions. Publishers must therefore approach language choices with both cultural awareness and individual sensitivity, recognising that respectful communication requires ongoing dialogue with diverse disability communities.

The impact of disability language extends far beyond direct references to individuals, penetrating deep into our everyday metaphors and expressions. Liat Ben-Moshe powerfully articulates how seemingly casual uses of terms like ‘retarded’, ‘lame’, or ‘blind’ perpetuate disability stigma, even when applied to abstract concepts: ‘By using a label, which is commonly associated with disabled people to denote deficiency, a lack, or an ill-conceived notion, we reproduce the oppression of people with disabilities’ (Ben-Moshe Reference Ben-Moshe, Ben-Moshe, Cory, Feldbaum and Sagendorf2005, 108–109). This observation reveals how language shapes societal attitudes through subtle, but pervasive, patterns of association.

Similar concerns arise with medical terminology that reinforces a ‘sick role’ narrative. Phrases like ‘suffering from’ or ‘wheelchair-bound’ position disability as inherently negative, while alternatives like ‘living with’ a condition or ‘wheelchair user’ acknowledge agency and normalise disability as one aspect of human experience (Haller et al. Reference Haller, Dorries and Rahn2006, 66). These linguistic choices reflect broader shifts in how society conceptualises disability identity and autonomy.

The publishing industry has responded to these evolving understandings through resources like Renée Otmar’s Editing for Sensitivity, Diversity and Inclusion (Reference Otmar2023) and comprehensive guidelines.Footnote ⁷⁸ These tools reflect growing recognition that inclusive language requires intentional, informed choices.

Arciuli and Shakespeare capture the transformative potential of thoughtful language use:

Their vision suggests how language can either reinforce barriers or help create a society where disability becomes ‘an unremarkable and unremarked-on part of someone’s multifaceted identity’.

Books hold unique power to shape cultural narratives through their ability to educate, preserve culture, inspire creativity, foster empathy, and provide entertainment. This power carries profound responsibility: the language choices made in publishing ripple outward, influencing how society perceives, discusses, and values disability. Inclusive language thus becomes not merely a matter of editorial preference but a crucial tool for advancing social justice and human dignity.

While ensuring universal accessibility of a single book across diverse disabilities and literacy levels presents inherent challenges, as books naturally target different audiences, publishers can significantly enhance content accessibility through thoughtful language choices. Ganner et al. (Reference Ganner, Mrva-Montoya, Park and Duncan2023, 58) advocate for ‘descriptive, multisensory language instead of purely visual expressions’, and avoiding reliance purely on colour or spatial description when referring to the location of elements on the page, such as figures. This is particularly important in educational materials and children’s books (Ganner et al. Reference Ganner, Mrva-Montoya, Park and Duncan2023, 58).

Publishers may also consider creating ‘high interest low reading level’ (high-low or hi-lo) or Easy Read versions of books. These adaptations maintain age-appropriate content while employing simpler vocabulary and syntax, serving not only struggling or reluctant readers but also individuals with cognitive and learning disabilities. Content written in Easy Read differs from plain language. Easy Read emphasises simplicity, and is usually accompanied by images and represented in large font size, while plain language focuses on clarity within standard formatting parameters (Australian Government 2020).

For scholarly works, accessibility initiatives have evolved beyond focusing on formats. Plain Language Summaries (PLS) and Taylor & Francis’ pioneering Plain Language Summaries of Publications (PLSP) represent significant advances in making complex research accessible to broader audiences.Footnote ⁷⁹ These peer-reviewed, open-access materials align with WCAG 2.1 guidelines requiring clear, simple content presentation or appropriate supplemental materials (W3C WAI 2023). As Rosenberg et al. (Reference Rosenberg, Walker, Griffiths and Jenkins2023, 109) argue, these innovations advance ‘diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility in scholarly publishing’ by breaking down barriers between academic knowledge and public understanding. Through such adaptations, publishers demonstrate how thoughtful language choices can expand access while maintaining content integrity across diverse audiences.

The publishing industry’s journey towards inclusivity extends far beyond the technical challenge of creating accessible formats. Through examination of workplace diversity, literary representation, and evolving language practices, this chapter argues for the need to reimagine fundamental aspects of how books are created and who creates them. Meaningful progress requires fundamental changes to industry structures and practices, rather than surface-level accommodations, to create a publishing landscape that genuinely reflects and serves the full spectrum of human diversity.